|
On August 16 2022 11:49 Gescom wrote:
^ Simply the case of publicly traded companies versus not. Blizzard "has" to maximize profits, ArenaNet can be content in simply succeeding. It's unfortunate, but its the 'the new normal' for ActiBlizz, EA, Ubisoft, etc etc.
There are short term gains and long term gains. Shareholders do understand moves made to strengthen the brand and provide more long term stability and profit as well as securing IP's future. "Money! Now!" is not always the thing for publicly traded companies. Exactly why cows have been made sacred in India in the past. You can slaughter the cow and eat well for a week or you can live off its milk for years.
|
Purely cosmetic MTX and a battlepass isn't an issue to me at all. I am not sure why people are so bitter about it. I would love to hear from those people what they expect developers to do.
You create a game which costs you money. Alright - you can decide to make it F2P or a full price title. Even if you assume the full development costs are generated via sales and generate a surplus as well - you still want your game to progress, get addon, extra content.
I believe Path of Exile with their MTX system is showing that its working pretty well. People are WILLING to pay for cool animations, skins & more. Why wouldnt they? Its part of customization and I don't believe developers are required to constantly develop and give 10000 options for your characters / attacks etc.
As long as we are talking purely cosmetic I am all for it. If I go back to PoE I can say that as little as changing a skin on an ability has made me enjoy the build again and PoE skins really are not cheap at all.
|
On August 16 2022 19:22 NarutO wrote:
Purely cosmetic MTX and a battlepass isn't an issue to me at all. I am not sure why people are so bitter about it. I would love to hear from those people what they expect developers to do.
You create a game which costs you money. Alright - you can decide to make it F2P or a full price title. Even if you assume the full development costs are generated via sales and generate a surplus as well - you still want your game to progress, get addon, extra content.
I believe Path of Exile with their MTX system is showing that its working pretty well. People are WILLING to pay for cool animations, skins & more. Why wouldnt they? Its part of customization and I don't believe developers are required to constantly develop and give 10000 options for your characters / attacks etc.
As long as we are talking purely cosmetic I am all for it. If I go back to PoE I can say that as little as changing a skin on an ability has made me enjoy the build again and PoE skins really are not cheap at all.
Because Diablo IV will have a box price while Path of Exile is free-to-play. Because Path of Exile has already PROVEN they keep developing the game with that money while everyone expects Blizzard to shit out a single mediocre expansion for Diablo IV and call it a day while still trying to nickel and dime you at every opportunity.
Watch this being sold for 70$ at launch because "muh increasing development costs" that Soyny is trying to standardize in the industry.
Also 5 different editions.
|
On August 16 2022 11:19 Manit0u wrote:
So, please, do not tell people that "it is the norm" and "they should accept it" because not everyone has given up like you did.
I don't consider accepting reality as giving up. On the contrary, imo it's way healthier to look at things the way they're now, than clinging on to the memory of how they used to be. GW2 was released almost a decade ago, that's really not a good example of what's normal these days. I'd say that almost every single AAA game released in the last 4-5 years, that offers online play of some kind, released with either a battle pass, a cash shop or both (with Elden Ring being the only exception I can think of right now).
|
On August 16 2022 22:48 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2022 11:19 Manit0u wrote:
So, please, do not tell people that "it is the norm" and "they should accept it" because not everyone has given up like you did. I don't consider accepting reality as giving up. On the contrary, imo it's way healthier to look at things the way they're now, than clinging on to the memory of how they used to be. GW2 was released almost a decade ago, that's really not a good example of what's normal these days. I'd say that almost every single AAA game released in the last 4-5 years, that offers online play of some kind, released with either a battle pass, a cash shop or both (with Elden Ring being the only exception I can think of right now).
CP2077 had it's share of problems but it also doesn't feature any of those items (and online play is coming to it at some point according to the devs). But there's more: Age of Empires 4, Hitman 3, Forza Horizon 5, Far Cry 6. Maybe not the best games but AAA releases with limited or no cash shop and no predatory microtransactions. All released 2021.
Personally I prefer the scenario where dev studios like Blizzard accept the reality where such practices are unacceptable and their games will be effectively DOA until it changes.
|
On August 16 2022 23:16 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2022 22:48 thePunGun wrote:On August 16 2022 11:19 Manit0u wrote:
So, please, do not tell people that "it is the norm" and "they should accept it" because not everyone has given up like you did. I don't consider accepting reality as giving up. On the contrary, imo it's way healthier to look at things the way they're now, than clinging on to the memory of how they used to be. GW2 was released almost a decade ago, that's really not a good example of what's normal these days. I'd say that almost every single AAA game released in the last 4-5 years, that offers online play of some kind, released with either a battle pass, a cash shop or both (with Elden Ring being the only exception I can think of right now). CP2077 had it's share of problems but it also doesn't feature any of those items (and online play is coming to it at some point according to the devs). But there's more: Age of Empires 4, Hitman 3, Forza Horizon 5, Far Cry 6. Maybe not the best games but AAA releases with limited or no cash shop and no predatory microtransactions. All released 2021. Personally I prefer the scenario where dev studios like Blizzard accept the reality where such practices are unacceptable and their games will be effectively DOA until it changes. They are also not seasonal...
If D4 launches and then has no further support outside of patches then 'battlepasses' and MTX shops are a ripoff.
If they operate more akin to for example PoE and keep things fresh then that is what your paying for.
Why does D3 receive minimal effort? Because there is no money in it.
|
On August 16 2022 19:22 NarutO wrote:
Purely cosmetic MTX and a battlepass isn't an issue to me at all. I am not sure why people are so bitter about it. I would love to hear from those people what they expect developers to do.
You create a game which costs you money. Alright - you can decide to make it F2P or a full price title. Even if you assume the full development costs are generated via sales and generate a surplus as well - you still want your game to progress, get addon, extra content.
I believe Path of Exile with their MTX system is showing that its working pretty well. People are WILLING to pay for cool animations, skins & more. Why wouldnt they? Its part of customization and I don't believe developers are required to constantly develop and give 10000 options for your characters / attacks etc.
As long as we are talking purely cosmetic I am all for it. If I go back to PoE I can say that as little as changing a skin on an ability has made me enjoy the build again and PoE skins really are not cheap at all.
PoE is free to play. All their content comes for free. You don't have do buy the base game nor any expansion pack nor pay a subscription. And people were still outraged about the introduction of a battle pass a few months back. Blizzard on the other hand is just - again - piling as many monetisation methods upon each other as humanly possible. I think everybody agrees that developing a game and supporting it afterwards costs money. I think people also agree that devs are allowed to make money and live a good life. What people are annoyed at is that companies are trying to milk players for as much money as possible with the least amount of effort. They are aiming to make way more money than is needed to cover development, server costs and giving the devs a good life. Actually, they mostly cover server costs and keep development costs as low as possible by paying their devs shitty wages so all the extra money can go to the top and the shareholders. All this "but the devs need money" is mostly placating. And people are once again eager to herald the message of the companies and defend them against their own interest. If I knew my money would go to support the devs I would have a bit less of a problem with that as well.
Please also consider the fact that not every game needs to be a live service game. Not every game needs to get continuous updates. As for D4, the deciding factor was money. A live service game will make them more money than just a box sale single player game. They will shit out cosmetics and what not, which take way less time and effort to create than actual content, at exorbitant prices and people will buy them. The amount of content D4 will release for free will be negligible, their expansions will still come with a box price. So all this money will be just for some balance updates, bug fixes and "seasonal content". I can't believe people are still giving Blizzard the benefit of a doubt...
|
On August 17 2022 00:03 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2022 19:22 NarutO wrote:
Purely cosmetic MTX and a battlepass isn't an issue to me at all. I am not sure why people are so bitter about it. I would love to hear from those people what they expect developers to do.
You create a game which costs you money. Alright - you can decide to make it F2P or a full price title. Even if you assume the full development costs are generated via sales and generate a surplus as well - you still want your game to progress, get addon, extra content.
I believe Path of Exile with their MTX system is showing that its working pretty well. People are WILLING to pay for cool animations, skins & more. Why wouldnt they? Its part of customization and I don't believe developers are required to constantly develop and give 10000 options for your characters / attacks etc.
As long as we are talking purely cosmetic I am all for it. If I go back to PoE I can say that as little as changing a skin on an ability has made me enjoy the build again and PoE skins really are not cheap at all. PoE is free to play. All their content comes for free. You don't have do buy the base game nor any expansion pack nor pay a subscription. And people were still outraged about the introduction of a battle pass a few months back. Blizzard on the other hand is just - again - piling as many monetisation methods upon each other as humanly possible. I think everybody agrees that developing a game and supporting it afterwards costs money. I think people also agree that devs are allowed to make money and live a good life. What people are annoyed at is that companies are trying to milk players for as much money as possible with the least amount of effort. They are aiming to make way more money than is needed to cover development, server costs and giving the devs a good life. Actually, they mostly cover server costs and keep development costs as low as possible by paying their devs shitty wages so all the extra money can go to the top and the shareholders. All this "but the devs need money" is mostly placating. And people are once again eager to herald the message of the companies and defend them against their own interest. If I knew my money would go to support the devs I would have a bit less of a problem with that as well. Please also consider the fact that not every game needs to be a live service game. Not every game needs to get continuous updates. As for D4, the deciding factor was money. A live service game will make them more money than just a box sale single player game. They will shit out cosmetics and what not, which take way less time and effort to create than actual content, at exorbitant prices and people will buy them. The amount of content D4 will release for free will be negligible, their expansions will still come with a box price. So all this money will be just for some balance updates, bug fixes and "seasonal content". I can't believe people are still giving Blizzard the benefit of a doubt...
Diablo IV if anything is aiming to explore the MMO aspect of ARPGs in a sense of Lost Ark as well. Free to play vs box price in my opinion doesn't really matter. Box price is set to achieve covering development costs (and hopefully more). Path of Exile is and was free to play but it wasn't always as rich in content.
In my book there is only one aspect that would be reason to get the pitchforks: If the content delivered as well as animation and outfits are lacking since they are looking to sell their MTX. If the MTX are simply a cool alternative or variation of already a good core game, that is no issue to me. People that don't want to support this - should stay away from buying them. Thats the loudest feedback they could ever give.
I am also not giving Blizzard the benefit of the doubt. I'm simply not enraged as long as the quality of the game isnt lacking due to MTX. If thats the case we can shit on them all day. If its simply an addition I don't see the reason.
|
I have no interest in the cosmetics shop. I played Hearthstone for roughly 6 years before quitting without spending a dime. All I care about is whether I will play Diablo 4 enough to justify the price I would need to pay for it. I'm not going to waste my time and energy raging about Blizzard's relationship with their customers who are not me. If chasing these customers ruins the game for me, there are plenty of other games I can play. Rule of thumb, never pre-order.
|
On August 17 2022 00:51 TaKeTV wrote:
Box price is set to achieve covering development costs (and hopefully more)
Do you know how much it would lower the development costs and time if they didn't have to put in battle pass and cash shop into the game?
I might be OK with it if they added it further down the line (like a year after release) to offset the costs of upkeep for infrastructure and personnel required to keep the game running and evolving. If those things are there right out of the gate you can bet that the game itself is going to hurt for it because now:
1. Significant design and development time and effort has gone into milking machines (which could've instead gone into core gameplay or enhancing the game)
2. More time and effort to design and put into game stuff that'll show up in the shop (pretty much Day 1 DLC since those assets could've just be a part of the game as cool legendary sets or something)
3. Possibly hurting gameplay/mechanics to steer people into the shop to buy various "convenience" items
I really don't see what's wrong with the approach of: sell product as box game to cover development costs, if the sales go well start developing an expansion that you'll also sell at box price (but now development time and effort is less because core gameplay and assets are already in place). Keep doing that and if you really, really think you need the cash shop then add it later on to add some breath of fresh air to the game (when people have established characters and names in an online game they're more likely to buy cosmetics to customize their toon anyway).
|
On August 17 2022 03:41 Manit0u wrote:
I might be OK with it if they added it further down the line (like a year after release) to offset the costs of upkeep for infrastructure and personnel required to keep the game running and evolving. If those things are there right out of the gate you can bet that the game itself is going to hurt for it because now:
1. Significant design and development time and effort has gone into milking machines (which could've instead gone into core gameplay or enhancing the game)
[...]
3. Possibly hurting gameplay/mechanics to steer people into the shop to buy various "convenience" items
This was mega true with D3 at release it was obvious, the itemization, stat system and difficulty style with the real money auction house.
(However now we're talking cosmetics only so idk)
|
On August 17 2022 00:51 TaKeTV wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2022 00:03 Miragee wrote:On August 16 2022 19:22 NarutO wrote:
Purely cosmetic MTX and a battlepass isn't an issue to me at all. I am not sure why people are so bitter about it. I would love to hear from those people what they expect developers to do.
You create a game which costs you money. Alright - you can decide to make it F2P or a full price title. Even if you assume the full development costs are generated via sales and generate a surplus as well - you still want your game to progress, get addon, extra content.
I believe Path of Exile with their MTX system is showing that its working pretty well. People are WILLING to pay for cool animations, skins & more. Why wouldnt they? Its part of customization and I don't believe developers are required to constantly develop and give 10000 options for your characters / attacks etc.
As long as we are talking purely cosmetic I am all for it. If I go back to PoE I can say that as little as changing a skin on an ability has made me enjoy the build again and PoE skins really are not cheap at all. PoE is free to play. All their content comes for free. You don't have do buy the base game nor any expansion pack nor pay a subscription. And people were still outraged about the introduction of a battle pass a few months back. Blizzard on the other hand is just - again - piling as many monetisation methods upon each other as humanly possible. I think everybody agrees that developing a game and supporting it afterwards costs money. I think people also agree that devs are allowed to make money and live a good life. What people are annoyed at is that companies are trying to milk players for as much money as possible with the least amount of effort. They are aiming to make way more money than is needed to cover development, server costs and giving the devs a good life. Actually, they mostly cover server costs and keep development costs as low as possible by paying their devs shitty wages so all the extra money can go to the top and the shareholders. All this "but the devs need money" is mostly placating. And people are once again eager to herald the message of the companies and defend them against their own interest. If I knew my money would go to support the devs I would have a bit less of a problem with that as well. Please also consider the fact that not every game needs to be a live service game. Not every game needs to get continuous updates. As for D4, the deciding factor was money. A live service game will make them more money than just a box sale single player game. They will shit out cosmetics and what not, which take way less time and effort to create than actual content, at exorbitant prices and people will buy them. The amount of content D4 will release for free will be negligible, their expansions will still come with a box price. So all this money will be just for some balance updates, bug fixes and "seasonal content". I can't believe people are still giving Blizzard the benefit of a doubt... Diablo IV if anything is aiming to explore the MMO aspect of ARPGs in a sense of Lost Ark as well. Free to play vs box price in my opinion doesn't really matter. Box price is set to achieve covering development costs (and hopefully more). Path of Exile is and was free to play but it wasn't always as rich in content. In my book there is only one aspect that would be reason to get the pitchforks: If the content delivered as well as animation and outfits are lacking since they are looking to sell their MTX. If the MTX are simply a cool alternative or variation of already a good core game, that is no issue to me. People that don't want to support this - should stay away from buying them. Thats the loudest feedback they could ever give. I am also not giving Blizzard the benefit of the doubt. I'm simply not enraged as long as the quality of the game isnt lacking due to MTX. If thats the case we can shit on them all day. If its simply an addition I don't see the reason.
To first point: I know but why? They need to force more multiplayer on people to sell skins. Skins sell much better if people can show them off. Which opens a whole can of problems with the argument "cosmetics don't affect your gameplay, if you don't like them, don't buy them". How am I going to prevent some dude jumping onto my screen with a celestial dragon turtle shooting unicorns from his bazooka, effectively ruining any immersion I previously had? And yes, probably every MMO nowadays does this and it's terrible. GW2 gets praised a lot but the visual consistency is a absolute nightmare and as soon as you see other players, all immersion is gone, which is an absolute shame because they put a ton of work into visuals and soundscape...
PoE was always more rich in content than D3 btw. When PoE came out of beta it wiped the floor with D3 content-wise.
Don't give them their money never works btw. because it will only every be a small minority who pulls through with it. I haven't bought a Blizzard game since D3 vanilla. It was the final nail in the coffin for me. Now, a decade later, with dozens of additional shit shows and scandals people still buy their games and microtransactions.
Well, you are saying wait and see what happens. How is that not giving them the benefit of a doubt? The quality will always take a dump to some extent with this type of stuff. They literally develop this to sell instead of being ingame rewards. Manitou listed some very good points, which are easily observable in D3.
|
I'm not a fan of live service games but even I know that if you want to make one, it needs to be one from the start. Making a fixed boxed copy and then turning it into a live service game later on will cause a lot of problems from a design and programming standpoint.
Blizzard has always catered to a multiplayer audience. Single player has always been secondary. It's just more obvious nowadays because physical retailers stopped carrying PC games more than 10 years ago. No point to having an offline mode when a customer needs to download the game in the first place. Random multiplayer matching has always been their thing. It's why they developed the original BNet and that was their major claim to fame. The original Warcraft was just a Dune 2 clone with multiplayer.
|
On August 17 2022 07:03 andrewlt wrote:
I'm not a fan of live service games but even I know that if you want to make one, it needs to be one from the start. Making a fixed boxed copy and then turning it into a live service game later on will cause a lot of problems from a design and programming standpoint.
That's one thing I don't really get since D1, D2 and D3 were primarily solo games. Sure, you did have bnet for some multiplayer but for most people most of their time was spent solo farming or whatever. You only really did multiplayer to goof around with friends, getting carried through some part of the game or pvp.
With D4 now they're pretty much forcing the least played modes onto everyone all the time. I don't really see it working. I didn't like this aspect of Lost Ark either. In my opinion the way to go here would be the GW1 route of multiplayer hubs (towns and outposts) where you can meet other people and form teams and then go out into the wilderness which would be instanced to a team. Much easier on resources, removes all problems with camping and griefing, much less to worry about in terms of immersion too and closer to its predecessors.
When I tried logging in to LA recently I just uninstalled after about an hour. It's painful to watch really and if Blizz was ripping off of it heavily (which is their typical modus operandi nowadays) then I don't have much faith in D4.
And as another example of successful multiplayer live-service game could be Dota 2. You get a full game for free (unlike League of Legends for example), you get some season passes and cosmetics shop but all prices are in real currency so no bullshit obfuscation (you know exactly that those shoulder pads will cost you $2.50).
|
On August 17 2022 08:05 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2022 07:03 andrewlt wrote:
I'm not a fan of live service games but even I know that if you want to make one, it needs to be one from the start. Making a fixed boxed copy and then turning it into a live service game later on will cause a lot of problems from a design and programming standpoint.
That's one thing I don't really get since D1, D2 and D3 were primarily solo games. Sure, you did have bnet for some multiplayer but for most people most of their time was spent solo farming or whatever. You only really did multiplayer to goof around with friends, getting carried through some part of the game or pvp. With D4 now they're pretty much forcing the least played modes onto everyone all the time. I don't really see it working. I didn't like this aspect of Lost Ark either. In my opinion the way to go here would be the GW1 route of multiplayer hubs (towns and outposts) where you can meet other people and form teams and then go out into the wilderness which would be instanced to a team. Much easier on resources, removes all problems with camping and griefing, much less to worry about in terms of immersion too and closer to its predecessors. When I tried logging in to LA recently I just uninstalled after about an hour. It's painful to watch really and if Blizz was ripping off of it heavily (which is their typical modus operandi nowadays) then I don't have much faith in D4. And as another example of successful multiplayer live-service game could be Dota 2. You get a full game for free (unlike League of Legends for example), you get some season passes and cosmetics shop but all prices are in real currency so no bullshit obfuscation (you know exactly that those shoulder pads will cost you $2.50).
Eh, I’d say D2 was more of a multiplayer game. WIth the drop rates and stuff,you had to trade to get a lot of the items or suffer through awful drop rates. It was a huge part of the game.
D3…..especially with RoS not so much, but you were heavily incentivized to group up given the xp% modifiers.
I don’t think it’s problem for most people. I think they see the ARPG genre as a multiplayer game, even if there is significant time to sologrind, but that isnt much different than a lot of MMOs on the market, or MMO-lites (not sure what to call something like Genshin Impact).
With D3’s success selling like 30 million copies or whatever, I don’t think it’s going to be an issue. We will probably see way more monetization, but I think thats a good thing, because that incentivizes devs to actually develop the game long-term instead of having an outdated business model like StarCraft 2/ D3.
|
On August 17 2022 08:05 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2022 07:03 andrewlt wrote:
I'm not a fan of live service games but even I know that if you want to make one, it needs to be one from the start. Making a fixed boxed copy and then turning it into a live service game later on will cause a lot of problems from a design and programming standpoint.
That's one thing I don't really get since D1, D2 and D3 were primarily solo games. Sure, you did have bnet for some multiplayer but for most people most of their time was spent solo farming or whatever. You only really did multiplayer to goof around with friends, getting carried through some part of the game or pvp. With D4 now they're pretty much forcing the least played modes onto everyone all the time. I don't really see it working. I didn't like this aspect of Lost Ark either. In my opinion the way to go here would be the GW1 route of multiplayer hubs (towns and outposts) where you can meet other people and form teams and then go out into the wilderness which would be instanced to a team. Much easier on resources, removes all problems with camping and griefing, much less to worry about in terms of immersion too and closer to its predecessors. When I tried logging in to LA recently I just uninstalled after about an hour. It's painful to watch really and if Blizz was ripping off of it heavily (which is their typical modus operandi nowadays) then I don't have much faith in D4. And as another example of successful multiplayer live-service game could be Dota 2. You get a full game for free (unlike League of Legends for example), you get some season passes and cosmetics shop but all prices are in real currency so no bullshit obfuscation (you know exactly that those shoulder pads will cost you $2.50). I find 'but D1 and 2 where offline games' to be a weak excuse. The internet barely existed, we were still working with dial-up.
Being an online game wasn't really an option at the time.
|
On August 17 2022 00:03 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2022 19:22 NarutO wrote:
Purely cosmetic MTX and a battlepass isn't an issue to me at all. I am not sure why people are so bitter about it. I would love to hear from those people what they expect developers to do.
You create a game which costs you money. Alright - you can decide to make it F2P or a full price title. Even if you assume the full development costs are generated via sales and generate a surplus as well - you still want your game to progress, get addon, extra content.
I believe Path of Exile with their MTX system is showing that its working pretty well. People are WILLING to pay for cool animations, skins & more. Why wouldnt they? Its part of customization and I don't believe developers are required to constantly develop and give 10000 options for your characters / attacks etc.
As long as we are talking purely cosmetic I am all for it. If I go back to PoE I can say that as little as changing a skin on an ability has made me enjoy the build again and PoE skins really are not cheap at all. PoE is free to play. All their content comes for free. You don't have do buy the base game nor any expansion pack nor pay a subscription. And people were still outraged about the introduction of a battle pass a few months back. Blizzard on the other hand is just - again - piling as many monetisation methods upon each other as humanly possible. I think everybody agrees that developing a game and supporting it afterwards costs money. I think people also agree that devs are allowed to make money and live a good life. What people are annoyed at is that companies are trying to milk players for as much money as possible with the least amount of effort. They are aiming to make way more money than is needed to cover development, server costs and giving the devs a good life. Actually, they mostly cover server costs and keep development costs as low as possible by paying their devs shitty wages so all the extra money can go to the top and the shareholders. All this "but the devs need money" is mostly placating. And people are once again eager to herald the message of the companies and defend them against their own interest. If I knew my money would go to support the devs I would have a bit less of a problem with that as well. Please also consider the fact that not every game needs to be a live service game. Not every game needs to get continuous updates. As for D4, the deciding factor was money. A live service game will make them more money than just a box sale single player game. They will shit out cosmetics and what not, which take way less time and effort to create than actual content, at exorbitant prices and people will buy them. The amount of content D4 will release for free will be negligible, their expansions will still come with a box price. So all this money will be just for some balance updates, bug fixes and "seasonal content". I can't believe people are still giving Blizzard the benefit of a doubt...
What Blizzard content doesnt come for free? For what kind of content do you have to pay for? How much money do you have to spend in order to enjoy a Blizzard game?
What kind of package is the Path of Exile free to play version? Is it actually enjoyable or painful restrictive?
User was banned for this post.
|
If the box costs 60 bucks and I get 60 hours of fun out of it, I'm prefectly happy.
Considering their past releases I doubt I get even one hour of fun out of it though.
|
On August 17 2022 18:04 Harris1st wrote:
If the box costs 60 bucks and I get 60 hours of fun out of it, I'm prefectly happy.
Considering their past releases I doubt I get even one hour of fun out of it though.
Ignore them, I'm fairly certain it's a bot.
|
Come to think of it, I find more and more games that don't use predatory business practices and instead rely on having a good product and loyal fanbase (something Blizzard decided to throw away for some reason). After all, series like Civilization, Total War etc. are still going pretty strong, have been for years even though they did have some botched releases (but they actually decided to learn from their mistakes). Paradox is also quite a big studio that keeps releasing a lot of products, they rely on DLC sales mostly but people seem to be perfectly fine with it.
I also don't really mind games that rely on full box price and DLC/expansions later on. I am willing to pay $300 for a game if it's good and payments are split over time (and I can also choose the content I want and the time of purchase without having to worry about FOMO).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
